Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 442922
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1477 OF 2013 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. GANGEERAIAH S/O ANKEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR'S.
1(A). SHIVANNA S/O GANGEERAIAH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O ANKANAHALLI VILLAGE, KUTKAL HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT.
1(B). SMT. SHIVAMMA, W/O DEVARAJU, D/O GANGEERAIAH, Digitally AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, signed by R/O SANGANABASAVANADODDI, SUNITHA K S KASABA HOBLI, Location: RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT.
HIGH COURT …APPELLANTS OF (BY SRI S.R. HEGDE HUDLAMANE, ADVOCATE)
KARNATAKA AND:
CHANNANKAIAH S/O LATE ANKEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS R/A ANKANAHALLI VILLAGE KOOTAGAL HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 571 511.
…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K.N. NITISH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K.V. NARASIMHAN, ADVOCATE)
THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & DECREE DTD 16.8.2013 PASSED IN R.A.NO.145/2008 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, RAMANAGARA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 14.10.2008 PASSED IN OS.NO.130/2004 ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND JMFC, RAMANAGARAM.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI
Clarification of ownership and possession rights regarding land disputes, emphasizing the necessity of credible evidence for claims of relinquishment and adverse possession.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 100 - Land Revenue Act - Section 133 - Dispute regarding title and possession of land - Plaintiff claimed title and injunction over land originally partitioned in 1979. Defendant claimed adverse possession and executed an alleged relinquishment deed. Courts confirmed plaintiff's ownership and possession, determining no valid relinquishment occurred. (Paras 4-8, 12, 30)
(B) Adverse Possession - Essential elements - Claimant must prove specific possession and the nature of possession - Claim based solely on unregistered or inadmissible documents is insufficient. (Paras 14-15, 24-25)
Facts of the case:
Appellant appealed against lower court decisions supporting the plaintiff's title over land under dispute due to an executed partition deed, with allegations of relinquishment made by the defendant after a partition. Defendant, in possession since 1986, claimed rights via adverse possession.
Findings of Court:
Plaintiff established ownership through evidence, contrary to defendant's claims based on questionable documents. Appeals dismissed.
Issues: Determination of ownership, validity of relinquishment claims, and adverse possession.
Ratio Decidendi: The existence of a relinquishment of title must be supported by credible evidence; adverse possession requires clear claims on possession duration and recognition by parties involved.
Result: Appeal dismissed; lower court findings confirmed.
ORAL JUDGMENT
This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 16.08.2013, passed in R.A.No.145/2008, by the learned Prl. Senior Civil Judge, CJM, Ramanagara, and the judgment and decree dated 14.10.2008, passed in O.S.No.130/2004 by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC, Ramanagara.
2. For convenience, the parties are referred to, based on their rankings before the trial Court. The appellant was the defendant, and the respondent was the plaintiff.
3. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows:
The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant for a declaration of title and a permanent injunction. It is the case of the plaintiff that the land bearing Sy.No.71 of Tadakavagilu Village, measuring 4 acres 20 guntas, was originally owned by one Ankegowda, who had 5 sons; Chennakaiah, the plaintiff Gangeeriah, the defendant Manarudraiah, Shivarudraiah, and Nagaraja. The above- said persons constituted a Hindu undivided joint family under Mithakshara School of Law. The aforementioned persons divided the property by virtue of a Panchayath Parikath, on 04.06.1979 before the Panchayathdars and succeeded to their respective shares in the joint family property holding the same independently as lawful owners in possession thereafter. After succeeding to the property by the jubane partition, the plaintiff cultivated the property and used to grow the various seasonal crops. The plaintiff had also planted a number of mango plants and is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Subsequent to the execution of the Panchayath Parikath, dated 04.06.1979, the two brothers, of the plaintiff, namely Maharudraiah and Shivrudraiah, due to a dispute regarding the passage of the property, had decided to sell their share to the defendant. Accordingly, Maharudraiah and Shivrudraiah sold their property to the defendants in Sy.No.71 to the extent of 2 acres and 10 guntas, and executed a registered sale deed dated 08.02.1982. The defendant became the absolute owner of the suit property to the extent of 3 acres 15 guntas, including his share allotted by way of partition dated 04.06.1979, and the remaining extent of 1 acre 5 guntas was retained by the plaintiff. The plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, and the defendants have no right, title or interest in the suit schedule property. The defendants, based on the revenue records, attempted to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule property by creating relinquishment deed. It is contended that the plaintiff never executed any relinquishment deed and never relinquished his right in favour of the defendant regarding his share on the suit properties. The plaintiff received a notice from the revenue authorities based on the jubane partition (oral partition) that has been entered between the parties to the suit. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the revenue entries in the name of the defendant, preferred an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner dismissed the appeal directing the plaintiff to approach the Civil Court. Pursuant to the directions issued by the Assistant Commissioner, the plaintiff has filed this suit for declaration and permanent injunction. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit.
3.1. The defendant filed a written statement contending that there was an oral partition on 04.06.1979 between the brothers of the plaintiff and the defendant, and subsequently, Maharudraiah and Shivrudraiah sold their shares in favour of the defendant under a registered sale deed dated 08.02.1982. It is contended that the plaintiff executed a registered relinquishment deed in favour of the defendant after his two brothers sold their respective shares in the suit property to the defendant. It is contended that the revenue records, have stood in the name of the defendant since 1986 about suit property as the owner and the possessor of the suit property. The defendan
